Editorial: Court decision, proposed rule favor Second Amendment

Second Amendment supporters got a couple of pieces of good news last month.

One, perhaps the most important in a while, was that a federal appeals court didn’t buy New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s argument that firearms manufacturers should be held responsible for firearm violence in his city.

The other bit of good news came when U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne proposed new rules regarding carrying loaded, concealed firearms in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

Kempthorne’s proposal would allow visitors who have valid concealed carry permits to carry their firearms in parks and refuges in states that allow guns in parks.

Current rules require firearms to be unloaded and stored in areas not readily accessible. Rules such as this aren’t much help if a person finds himself in a situation in which he needs a firearm. If one’s pistol is locked in a car trunk while the owner is hiking a remote trail in Yellowstone National Park, it might as well be locked in the owner’s gun safe back home in Tennessee.

Kempthorne’s plan is protested by park rangers, park service retirees and conservation groups. They say the new rules would confuse visitors and rangers. What’s so difficult about knowing the law for these folks?

Rangers have a duty to know the laws they’re enforcing and visitors who wish to take responsibility for their own safety in the backcountry will take the time to learn about applicable laws where they’re vacationing.

As for the conservation groups and other park visitors not likely to be armed, they needn’t worry about the law because they won’t run afoul of it.
We’ll go out on a limb here and speculate the real reason they don’t want the rules to change is because they simply don’t like the idea of their fellow visitors having ready access to guns.

What they seem to overlook is  those visitors carrying guns wouldn’t be simply anyone who had stopped by a gun shop on the way to the park. They have been vetted by their local law enforcement agencies as being responsible citizens.

Generally speaking, people who care enough about their security to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm are not the type to use their guns frivolously.

Self-defense advocates would like Kempthorne’s proposal better if he would allow open carry by any visitor who is not barred from owning a firearm, but most will likely cheer any change in the direction of individual freedom and responsibility.

The ruling in Bloomberg’s lawsuit likely is more far-reaching than Kempthorne’s proposal. According to a Reuters report, New York’s suit argued that gun makers should be required to take steps to make sure their products don’t end up in the hands of criminals. As if a manufacturer has any control over the end use of its product.

The appeals court overturned a lower court ruling, saying the gun makers were protected from such lawsuits under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005.

Although the decision bolsters the rights of firearms manufacturers and dealers to engage in selling a legal product, it doesn’t go far enough to block similar lawsuits that attempt to punish corporations for the acts of individuals over which they have no control.

The problem with such suits is they seek to force gun makers and sellers into duties they cannot possibly perform. If the petitioners in these suits alleged the product was somehow defective in design or construction that made it inherently dangerous, they would have a point. But that’s rarely the argument used to try to shut down firearm sales. The 2005 law is a good law and this decision solidifies the intent of Congress.